Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Copied from WG list, should also have been on the comments list.
>
> Dave Beckett's comments preceded by >>
> WG responce preceded by >
>
> Harry Halpin wrote:
>> Sent on behalf of the WG, text by member Jeremy Carroll:
>> Hi Dave
>>
>>> Are the contents you get when resolving the URI
>>> http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view part of the GRDDL recommendation?
>>
>>> If so, I'd expect the contents to be static and could be hard-coded
>>> into applications. If not static, what are the expected changes?
>>> (Given that above the only allowed changes are defined to not affect
>>> GRDDL processing).
>>
>>> The GRDDL profile URI is a significant URI for the GRDDL
>>> specification, so this is why I want to check if there is
>>> anything special going on with it's use and any contents
>>> that it may contain.
>>
>>
>> To reply directly:
>> a) No, the content of http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view are not part
>> of the GRDDL recommendation?
>> b) We will review and correct the contents of
>> http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view during the candidate recommendation
>> phase (which we hope will be from May 1st to June 1st), after which it
>> should be stable. We will update you when we have done this.
>> c) Applications can behave as if the file had an empty GRDDL result,
>> except when they are explicitly asked for the GRDDL result of this
>> resource. In the latter case, they should do a GET on the URI and apply
>> the usually GRDDL mechanisms.
>>
>> This is the force of the statement in the editor's draft:
>> [[
>> The namespace document includes RDF data about the terms in the GRDDL
>> Vocuabulary, but these RDF data do not include any triples whose
>> predicate is grddl:profileTransformation.
>> ]]
>> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#grddlvocab
>>
>> since that is the only type of triple that one would normally have to
>> look for.
>>
>> Does this adequately address your concerns about the namespace document?
>>
>> ===========
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
Yes it does address my concerns. Thanks
Dave